Where Islam spreads, freedom dies

Following the result of the German general election, in which the right-leaning parties prevailed decisively, there has been some hand-wringing in Europe's left-wing press about why the left-leaning parties have failed to capitalise on the economic crisis. The market ideology favoured by the right ought to have been discredited by the implosion of the world economy it has brought about, they argue. "Why, oh why, have those foolish plebs not seen this?" they cry, bewildered.

Among the myriad reasons offered in explanation, one is rarely heard: immigration, and, specifically, Islamic immigration. The European people are waking up to the threat the mass immigration of Muslims poses to their civilisation. Right-wing parties are perceived as being more willing to deal with this problem than left-wing ones, although, in truth, they are really not much better.

A good article from Oliver Kamm on Yale University's recent cowardly decision not to publish photographs of the cartoons in a book about them.

"That principle is moderate, balanced and pernicious. The idea that people’s beliefs, merely by being deeply held, merit respect is grotesque. A constitutional society upholds freedom of speech and thought: it has no interest in its citizens’ feelings. If it sought to protect sensibilities, there would be no limit to the abridgements of freedom that the principle would justify."

They said Mohammad was a "warlord" and that the dress worn by Muslim females was "oppressive" and a "form of bondage". They've been charged with a breach of public order and their hotel business has plummeted after a local hospital ceased recommending them.